Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

I bought a Jeep.

[YOhio]

I bought a Jeep.

[Uncle Ted]

We traded in our large SUV that got 12-14 MPG for a cross-over SUV that still had three rows of seats and is actually more comfortable to travel in. We now get very high 20's mpg on the road and over 20 in town with a V6 (still has sufficient power). The kids even like it more, with the additional amenities the new vehicle has over the old.

You should take a look at the 2014 BMW X5 M50d... 42 frak'n miles per gallon!

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2014-bmw-x5-m50d-diesel-same-burly-tri-turbo-engine-new-x5-body-still-not-for-america/

We have a TDI and love it. No expensive batteries to change and 25% less emissions than your gas powered ones. We even have the option of fueling up at Mickey D's.

[creekster]

As JL has already explained, you're conflating two very different issues -- you're not alone in this.

Acknowledging the scientific consensus is step one. Step two is deciding what, if anything, can be done. It's maddening that so many people are afraid of step two so they just avoid it by pretending the scientific reality doesn't exist. There are important considerations on both sides of the discussion regarding what, if anything, can be done about global warming, but it seems like most of the effort is wasted on pointless denial of the facts rather than rational discussion of how much should be sacrificed to try to fix the problem, or whether it's fixable at all.

The problem is that the answer to step two likely depends on the depth and certainty of step one, which is where these issues overlap. How far do you drive policy if the consensus is weak or based on suspect grounds? How far do you push policy if the consesus is rock solid? Moreover, step one has several subparts that seem to break out (at least to me). Is there warming? Is man made emission contributing? How much is caused by man made emissions? the depth of thw consensus seems to vary on these issues and that makes step two a very muddled discussion.

[VirginiaCougar]

I don't think many people are afraid of having that conversation. At least I'm not.

Here's the thing's I've done. PUrchased a brand new SUV that gets only 12-14 mpg, worse than my last SUV. Moved into a bigger, but older home that is not extremely efficient and required me to run the AC all summer to placate a pregnant wife. Install higher pressure shower heads that use more water for my comfort and convenience.

But seriously. Whose afraid of having a conversation. There are 3 steps to get to the conversation you want to have, even after having accepted the science.

1. Could we reverse global warming if we wanted to?
2. Even if we could, is it worth the cost? Do the benefits of warming outweigh or mitigate the negatives such that the costs of change are too high?
3. Finally we get to what I believe is the conversation you want to have. How drastic and in what ways should we change and spend money to mitigate warming.

I don't ever hear your side having the conversation in number 2. Are you afraid of that conversation? I wouldn't make that assertion as you have of the other side. Further, your side tends to poo-poo clean energy sources that would mitigate the harm i.e fracking, natural gas, nuclear, water power, keystone. Cheaper oil could even be part of the solution as carbon tax would be much more politically viable (though not something I support).

Regarding your three questions:

1) That is a valid question. If it is the case as the scientists are right that human activity has played a primary role in climate change, then the solutions will primarily be there are well. If it isn't too late. Which, if that is what you are arguing, is an absurd argument. It is like saying we are driving toward a huge cliff, but because we aren't likely to stop in time, we shouldn't even try and hit the breaks or swerve in any way.

Of course there are many for ideological reasons that don't want to have the conversation. Denying and thus avoiding the conversation is ubiquitous in certain ideological and political circles.

2) Of course it is. As I noted, so far for us as a family it has been a strong positive. Imagine if such things were promoted nationally. The potential impact of minimal changes scaled up to that level. Most of what I have read points to very reasonable things. I also find the argument that "it costs too much" so we might as well screw it a silly one. If what the scientists believe is true, the cost of not doing anything will be much, much higher. I've seen some very interesting studies already that show the many billions of dollars climate change has caused with the additional extreme events, destruction of property, additional heating or cooling costs due to greater temp variations, etc.

3) See above.

I don't know what "side" I am on other than I think science answers the question of climate change better than ideology. I am strongly in favor of increasing nuclear energy in the US - it is the best way to bridge the US energy needs as we transition to cleaner energy sources which are improving but not ready to carry the load. I have not come out against fracking, but there is mixed evidence about its environmental impact - it may just exacerbate climate change, not mitigate it. Keystone has little to do with the US as there are already pipelines from Canada into the US. We get the largest percentage of our imported oil from Canada, and it isn't even really that close. If you want to build Keystone, fine, but realize it has almost nothing to do with the United States and our oil supply. It is about getting Canadian oil to the Gulf ports where it can be exported to other nations. It isn't about US supply and may even decrease the amount of oil available in the US as they will be able to more cheaply export it elsewhere (the primary intent of Keystone). Right now, price is somewhat suppressed on Canadian oil as it is really hard for them to export it from Central Canada to anyone but us.

We aren't going to get rid of oil/coal immediately, and we should realize that. But there is plenty we can do to mitigate the effects though - until the next generation energy sources are ready to go.

[creekster]

Regarding your three questions:

1) That is a valid question. If it is the case as the scientists are right that human activity has played a primary role in climate change, then the solutions will primarily be there are well. If it isn't too late. Which, if that is what you are arguing, is an absurd argument. It is like saying we are driving toward a huge cliff, but because we aren't likely to stop in time, we shouldn't even try and hit the breaks or swerve in any way.

Of course there are many for ideological reasons don't want to have the conversation. Denying and thus avoiding the conversation is ubiquitous in certain ideological and political circles.

You seem to be treating the issue like a light switch; either we have warming and all attendant consequences or we dont. That's just not how it works. If it was binary the climate models would likely be much more effective predictors and the policy answer would be much easier.

[VirginiaCougar]

You should take a look at the 2014 BMW X5 M50d... 42 frak'n miles per gallon!

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2014-bmw-x5-m50d-diesel-same-burly-tri-turbo-engine-new-x5-body-still-not-for-america/

We have a TDI and love it. No expensive batteries to change and 25% less emissions than your gas powered ones. We even have the option of fueling up at Mickey D's.

Nice looking vehicle! We also like the TDi, a very nice choice.

[VirginiaCougar]

You seem to be treating the issue like a light switch; either we have warming and all attendant consequences or we dont. That's just not how it works. If it was binary the climate models would likely be much more effective predictors and the policy answer would be much easier.

I would actually disagree with this. That is what Jacob was offering in his choices. I see it as a continuous variable. Thus small steps may potentially matter. Hedging our bets along the way while the models work themselves out is this a reasonable thing to do. The science is still very much in flux. But that doesn't mean the consensus is wrong or that marginal efforts don't matter.

[Jacob]

Wow. I'll see if I can respond. There was so much avoiding and dissebling going on here. I'll skip your response to my first question, because that question is not as interesting.

2) Of course it is.

See. You say my side is avoiding the conversation, but your response to what I consider an important question and a large part of what the conversation is to gloss over it entirely.

My question:
2. Even if we could, is it worth the cost? Do the benefits of warming outweigh or mitigate the negatives such that the costs of change are too high?
Your response: Of course!

Well its not obvious to me. It's not clear that there will be many direct costs to me individually. You want to jump ahead to the next part of the conversation without satisfactorily engaging in the first part. There is little reason to discuss how many trillions of dollars should be spent and how my life should be inconvenienced when you don't want to engage in whether my life will be much inconvenienced if I fail to act.

As I noted, so far for us as a family it has been a strong positive. Imagine if such things were promoted nationally. The potential impact of minimal changes scaled up to that level. Most of what I have read points to very reasonable things. I also find the argument that "it costs too much" so we might as well screw it a silly one. If what the scientists believe is true, the cost of not doing anything will be much, much higher. I've seen some very interesting studies already that show the many billions of dollars climate change has caused with the additional extreme events, destruction of property, additional heating or cooling costs due to greater temp variations, etc.

It is my understanding that:
1: The extreme events aren't actually abnormal (compared to the historical record). This is a focus on short term weather trends that you accuse anti-science folks of belaboring re: current cooling or static trend.
2. If they are, they are not likely caused by increased CO2.

You should keep up with the science.

3) I don't know what "side" I am on other than I think science answers the question of climate change better than ideology.

Then what is the point of all this? I guess you agree with everybody else on earth. Science answers the question better than ideology. We can all stop arguing now.

I am strongly in favor of increasing nuclear energy in the US - it is the best way to bridge the US energy needs as we transition to cleaner energy sources which are improving but not ready to carry the load.

Nuclear power is blocked largely by people who favor Al Gore's arguments.

I have not come out against fracking, but there is mixed evidence about its environmental impact - it may just exacerbate climate change, not mitigate it.

This statement seems to demonstrate that you care little about actual science. Your saying there is "mixed evidence" is akin to Rush Limbaugh saying there is "mixed evidence" of man-caused climate change.

Keystone has little to do with the US as there are already pipelines from Canada into the US. We get the largest percentage of our imported oil from Canada, and it isn't even really that close. If you want to build Keystone, fine, but realize it has almost nothing to do with the United States and our oil supply. It is about getting Canadian oil to the Gulf ports where it can be exported to other nations. It isn't about US supply and may even decrease the amount of oil available in the US as they will be able to more cheaply export it elsewhere (the primary intent of Keystone). Right now, price is somewhat suppressed on Canadian oil as it is really hard for them to export it from Central Canada to anyone but us.

Nothing to do with the United States? Incredible. A pipeline through the US? The point about Keystone was that it, along with fracking and drilling could bring down fuel costs making a carbon tax more palatable. I don't favor it, but there is no doubt but that increased supply of oil and moving towards natural gas would decrease prices. This argument may be not be strong for mitigating warming, I admit. But the global warming forces are opposed to things like fracking, drilling, etc due almost entirely to ideology and ignore the science. At least the arguments are couched in anti-science jargon. I speak of arguments against drilling in ANWAR, off-shore, pipelines, fracking.

[VirginiaCougar]

I'll skip your response to my first question, because that question is not as interesting.

Then why did you state it in the first place if you are going to walk it back immediately.

My question:

You should keep up with the science.

My point exactly, My positions on this are consistent with the science. I am very comfortable arguing what I did as it relates to the science. It is consistent.

Then what is the point of all this? I guess you agree with everybody else on earth. Science answers the question better than ideology. We can all stop arguing now.

Nuclear power is blocked largely by people who favor Al Gore's arguments.

This is that "binary thinking" which was mentioned above. First, You are nuts to think that "everyone agrees" with me (well, the science). Look at the breakdown of public views on Climate Change and ideology. Here is one of many, many examples:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/global-warming-views-steady-despite-warm-winter.aspx

My views on fracking are also because of the science and that I care about it as opposed to the opposite. The scientific evidence says we should potentially be concerned about it with more data needed. Anecdotally, being able to light your running kitchen faucet on fire is concern for the science not a rejection of it a la Limbaugh/Beck/various Tea Party voices in the GOP. It is respect for the science. So I reject your statement on that point. Being concerned with "inconvenience" and trying to monetarily quantify any and all of it it as opposed to more serious measures of "quality of life" is, I would argue, a bigger lack of respect for the science and its findings. I am supportive of reasonable efforts and studies (which I find in agreement with these views) to quantify broader "quality of life" concerns.

Keystone? Incredible indeed! Look at these maps, look at the existing pipelines and look where Keystone is intended to go and think why... Its well documented. It is intended to go to the Texas Gulf export ports. Do you think that is to turn around and send it back to California or New York??

http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocID=227299

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/keystone-xl-map/images/keystone-xl-map.jpg

I think, as do most who agree with the science that Al Gore is nuts and not helpful at all (and hypocritical on top of that.) He doesn't represent the scientific community, nor are his views representative of most on this topic. Its one of those "gotcha" things the ideologues tend to bring out when the science gets "inconvenient." There are those that oppose nuclear energy, that is true. My belief is that nuclear (with water and others where appropriate) is the only real viable "clean" option while the next generation of power source technologies mature.

Your argument on the carbon tax actually lacks logic. So your argument is that we reduce the price of gas to place a carbon tax on it to reduce the use of that gas. If I agreed with this argument, which I don't, wouldn't you put the carbon tax on now when it would have a greater effect on useage?

[Katy Lied]

Can someone answer my non-political question--Just looking for an answer. Let's assume that climate change is the result of man-made action. is this an accumulation of greenhouse gases since the industrial age? Or just in the last 20 years? Or since cavemen have been haunching over open pit fires?

[VirginiaCougar]

Can someone answer my non-political question--Just looking for an answer. Let's assume that climate change is the result of man-made action. is this an accumulation of greenhouse gases since the industrial age? Or just in the last 20 years? Or since cavemen have been haunching over open pit fires?

This is one interesting timeline that partially addresses your question.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

[Jacob]

I can't engage with you. You are all over the place. So much for wanting a conversation.

[VirginiaCougar]

I can't engage with you. You are all over the place. So much for wanting a conversation.

LOL, oh my.... Isn't that ironic. So much for wanting a conversation indeed.

So, where have my positions differed from my previous statements or logically inconsistent with the science on this issue?

[Katy Lied]

This is one interesting timeline that partially addresses your question.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

thx